I realize you’re arguing leftism from within its frame. And while possible to understand it from within its frame, that frame is pseudoscientific(philosophical) and requires the scientific(testifiable) to falsify it.
To start with Ill try to clarify terms.
Literary Philosophy (Analogy) is Justificationary, for the purpose of Communication.
- Mythology (analogical wisdom, the natural )
- Wisdom Literature (wisdom authors – china, the wise )
- Persuasive Literary Philosophy (philosophers, the good)
- Rational Philosophy (Kant, secular theological, secular moral
- Natural Philosophy (Empiricists, Scientists, the true)
Logic (Consistency) is Falsificationary (Surviving)
- Positional logic (math)
- Set Logic (language)
- Algorithmic Logic (transformations)
- Operational Logic (actions)
Science (Causality) is Falsificationary (Surviving)
- [ Formal (Logical) ]
Law (Decidability) is Falsificationary (Surviving)
Two Sexes with Competing Strategies
The Genders differ in their competition, conflict and warfare strategy.
Males: Demonstrated Advantage, hierarchy, maintaining group cohesion (inequality) Truth under threat of violence in the service of male solidarity in the preservation of the Tribe and Territory is the competitive strategy of males. Males fight for position in the hierarchy and end conflict with increases in loyalty to one another.
— vs —
Females: Intrinsic Advantage, conformity, maintaining group cohesion under threat of reputation destruction in the service of female solidarity independent of Tribe and Territory is the competitive strategy of females. Females fight to destroy or kill without ending.
Adaptive Velocity Given Male and Female Differences in Reproductive Strategy
( … )
Mankind evolved into a superpredator. By Male political and physical (fast) and female social and informational (slow) superpredation.
Producing a spectrum of moral biases that constitute the individual’s demand for terms of cooperation
Cooperation is Disproportionately Rewarding Such That Survival Is Dependent Upon it.
Man Competes at Scale
There are many categories of markets within this spectrum:
… 1 – Associative, Social, Sexual, Cooperative, Economic, Informational, Political, and Military Markets
Man Organizes Cooperation at Scale
Obvious fact Man organizes. Man organizes to cooperate with those of common interests, and compete against those with competing common interests.
… 1 – Family,
… 2 – Friends, Acquaintances
… 3 – Interest Groups, Associations, Societies, Religions
… 4 – Associates, Partners, Employers, Vendors
… 5 – Intellectual, Media, Bureaucratic, Political Allies
… 6 – Economic Military and Strategic Alliances
Man Coerces into Organization
There are only three methods of human coercion:
… 1 – Physical: Force<->Defense (military-political)
… 2 – Reciprocal: Trade <-> Boycott (economic).
… 3 – Verbal: Inclusion <-> Exclusion (social)
Man Develops a Limited Number of Institutions of Coercive Organization
… 1 – Physical: Force<->Defense (military-political) evolves into the State favoring the upper classes
… 2 – Reciprocal: Trade <-> Boycott (economic). Evolves into Rule of Law (or its absence) favoring the middle classes
… 3 – Verbal: Inclusion <-> Exclusion (social) evolves into Religion, Mythology, Philosophy, or Ideology favoring the underclasses
Man Develops a Sequence of Those Institutions of Coercion, of declining influence.
The order in which a group develops these institutions anchors the civilization on the first, less so the second, and most civilizations are weak or fail at the third.
… 1 – Military > Law > State > Religion Fail (Europe) – Rapid evolution, Expansion, Assimilation failure
… 2 – Military > State > Law > Religion Fail (no example, Europe trying?)
… 3 – Military > State > Religion > Law Fail (China) – Expansion, and Assimilation but Slow growth and Stagnation
… 4 – Military > Religion > Weak State > Law Fail (India) – Stagnation/Vulnerability
… 5 – Military > Religion > State Fail > Law Fail (Islam) – Producing Diaspora and Decline
… 6 – Fail Military > Religion > Law Fail (asymmetric) > State Fail (Judaism) – Diasporic (fail at military and a people will always fail)
… 7 – Fail Military > Fail Religion > Fail State > Fail Law (Gypsies) – Diasporic
Man’s institutions of coercion are either Empirical (by case) or Practical (by general rule), or Ideal (By universal application).
… 1. The Issue of State and Bureaucratic Command (General Rule) is Practical and Political (all)
… 2. The Judicial and Commercial Resolution of Disputes by Law(Case by Case) is Empirical (parties)
… 3. The Religious and Social Supernatural Demands (Universals) are Ideal and often Utopian. (individuals)
Man has a limited number of methods of verbal coercion:
… 1 – Physical: Threat of force versus deprivation of defense
… 2 – Material: Exchange of Truthful, Operational, Reciprocally Beneficial Gains free of a negative externality vs Lost Opportunity for Gain.
… 3 – Hypothetical: Promise or Pleading (arguing) for inclusion versus threatening exclusion.
Man has a limited number of methods of verbal ‘seductions’ to employ to advance the hypothetical:
In simple terms, there are only so many methods of conducting social construction of falsehoods (fictionalisms), because only so many human faculties to ‘overload’:
… 1 – The Emotional: psychologizing -> moralizing -> ideology to overload: moral intuition and fear of ostraciztion.
… 2 – The Physical: magic->supernormal->pseudoscience to overload: ignorance and evidence.
… 3 – The Verbal: sophistry->idealism->rational_philosophy to overload: reason and logic
… 4 – The Imaginary: occult->supernatural->theology to overload: intuition and imagination.
As such Man Produces Verbal, Informational, Methods of Cultural Production, Distribution, and Persistence.
The result was each civilization developed:
… (a) A Group Competitive Strategy
… (b) A Metaphysical Paradigm of Dimensions that Reflect or Diverge from the Laws of the Universe
… (c) A Mythology to communicate that metaphysical paradigm and the competitive strategy it contains by suggestion
… (d) An Argumentative methodology – a method of ‘argument’ or persuasion (“A Grammar: paradigm, vocabulary, logic”)
… (e) A wisdom literature consisting of justifications for that strategy, mythology, institutions, methodology.
… (f) One or more institutions of:
… … i – Religion (universal moral intuition),
… … ii – Education (general explanations),
… … iii – Training (particular occupation),
… … iv – Law (Rules), and
… … v – State (Enforcement)
… (a) intergenerationally transfer the group’s strategy
… (b) justify its institutions of organization,
… (c) using the ‘grammar’ (paradigms, vocabulary, logic) necessary to propagate it:
… … i – Law Proper (Science)
… … ii – Pseudoscience (physical, material),
… … iii – Philosophy (Verbal, Rational), or
… … iv – Ideology (Emotional, Moral),
… … v – Theology (imaginary). History -> Literature -> Mythology -> Theology <- Philosophy <- Law <- Science <- Logic
Civilizational Differences in Fictionalisms:
… 1. Anglo-European empiricism, science, and law (Scientific Philosophy)
… 2. Aristotelian-Epicurean natural philosophy (Natural Philosophy)
… 3. Continental Rationalism and (literary philosophy)
… 4. Platonism Pseudoscientific idealism and sophistry as ‘philosophy’ (Literary Philosophy)
… 5. Chinese Confucian “reasonable’ wisdom literature
… 6. Buddhism pseudoscientific -> occult wisdom literature
… 7. Hindu Mythological wisdom literature
… 8. Abrahamism v1 (Judaism Christianity Islamv1, v2 , v3 (wahabi) ) – Conflation of Wisdom with Law, Mythology with History, Supernatural with Natural, as ‘theology’.
… 9. Abrahamism v2 (marxism, neo marxism-postmodernism, feminism-pc-woke-ism) – Pseudoscience and sophistry to deny the formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe – blaming the discoverers of those laws as if they were the creators of those laws. Where those laws of nature are not kind whatsoever but force constant adaptation.
The Evolution of Abrahamic (Female) Persuasion, Argument:
… Abrahamic Religion -> Theology(Pseudo-law) -> Pilpul (sophistry) -> Critique (undermining) -> Social Construction(false promise)
… … Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam:
… … … [the abrahamic dark ages and the death of the great civs of the ancient world.]
… … … Classical(empirical) Restoration -> Renaissance -> Reformation -> Nation State Wars (wars of religion)
… … … … Anglo (Empirical) -> Agrarian -> Commercial -> Financial -> Industrial Revolutions
. … … … … … Rousseau -> Kant -> Hegel: the Secular Pseudoscientific Revolt against the British Empirical Revolution (restoration).
… … … … … … Darwin -> Menger -> Spencer -> Romanticism (World War Fail)
… … … … … … … Marxism -> Neo-Marxism -> Feminism -> Pomo -> PC/Woke Secular Pseudoscientific Revolt.
Contrasting the Abrahamic (South West Eurasian) vs European Methods of Argument
The Abrahamic method of argument is the social construction of non-correspondence with the laws of the universe by:
… 0. Supernaturalism(vs Realism), Idealism (vs naturalism), Consent (vs Reciprocity)
… 1. Consensus
… 2. Dialectic (negotiation),
… 3. Justification (excuse-making),
… 4. Pilpul (sophistry), and
… 5. Critique (undermining), and
… 6. Heaping-undue-praise (overloading).
… 7. Evading warranty and liability (unaccountability)
Because of the lack of necessity of producing commons – where commons cannot be privatized or consumed.
The Abrahamic civilizations (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) fail to produce commons and instaead ride on the host people or their upper classes.
Instead of the European method of:
… 0. Realism, Naturalism, and Reciprocity
… 1. Truth (Consistency and correspondence with the laws of the universe) – vs Consensus
… 2. Adversarial competition (falsification) – vs Dialectical Negotiation
… 3. Tests of Reciprocity (falsification) – vs Justification
… 4. Incentives, evidence, and testimony (falsification) vs Pilpul
… 5. Facts and Logic of Incentives, and falsification (vs critique and undermining)
… 6. Limiting ourselves to the facts, evidence, incentives, context (vs overloading)
… 7. Under warranty and liability by perjury. (vs evading of warranty and liability).
Because of the necessity and utility of producing commons that cannot be privatized or consumed.
Europeans compete by the production of commons, and free riding is suppressed.
In the Jewish Religion, they use both mythology and a legal code. Jews adjudicated with priests. Continental Europe adjudicated with the church priests as much or more than the law. The French invented continental law because it could not trust the corrupt judiciary, and chose a via-positiva law. Anglo and Scandinavian Europe adjudicated with the law among freemen. In the common law tradition, we have only tort and command of the monarchy, nobility, manor. And we had manor law, common law, and state law for the classes with tort remaining consistent across them. English jurists were reasonably trustworthy. So today Jews and the French use ‘intellectually made law’ and the anglosphere uses empirically discovered law and legislation that does not conflict with its foundations. So the Abrahamic (Jewish) method affected the continent from south to north in a clade, with low trust south under the corruption of the church longer and the high trust north under it for less time and with more competing institutions.
Empiricism (Rule of Law) does not tell us what to do only what we may not do. This was suitable for the commercial British, but intolerable for the continent – who rebelled against it in a search for a secular equivalent to the bible.
Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel did not adopt the empirical revolution but sought a secular philosophical replacement for the Christian conflation of faculties instead of the empirical divergence of faculties. This tradition continues which is why the continental program is still dead in the water.
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and the long line of neo-Marxists postmodernists anti-male feminists, and present pc-woke are all relying on unempirical (counter-empirical) empty verbalism to construct sophisticated falsehoods by a process of storytelling(suspension of disbelief) and suggestion (evading evidence and criticism) by baiting into the hazard with false promises of freedom from the four laws of the universe: the logical, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary.
So dialectic is just Abrahamic pilpul (sophistry). Logic of inference tests only internal consistency, not categorical, operational, rational, reciprocal consistency. Logic is either constructed from the first principles of the laws of the universe or it is just sophistry. In other words, pseudoscientific philosophy has replaced occult theology but the purpose of both methods of fictionalism is the social construction of deceit by overloading and suggestion of minds lacking defense against such sophisticated deceits.
And there is no difference between the supernatural false promises of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the supernormal false promises of marxism, neo-marxism-feminism-postmodernism, and pc=woke anti-whiteness. They are two generations of socially constructed fictionalisms of deceit in two generations of revolt against the Indo-European and European incremental discovery adaptation to and application of the laws of the universe in order to rally the backward underclasses against the evolutionary leap provided by the Indo European upper classes.
Yes, marxism-pomo-pc-woke is a revolt against the Darwinian explanation for the success of western civilization – the extraordinary rate of adaptation that has helped us drag ourselves and mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering and early death at the cost of our alienation as the division of labor increases and our individual relevance vanishes into thin air.
Which is really the point of it all.
Dialectic = Sophistry = Pilpul = Philosophy = justified not evidentiary and falsified – absence of evidence.
Science = Testimony = categorically, logically, operationally, rationally, reciprocally consistent, with stated limits, full accounting within them, warrantied and liable for that testimony.
Simple version: Dialectic = justificationary pilpul(sophistry) for the purpose of social construction. The fact that it is rational and supernormal sophistry rather than theological and supernatural sophistry is merely a change in style, but not method or substance. It’s a great lie for ignorant suckers. Nothing more.